Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday February 15, 2013 @04:09PM
from the if-we-put-a-man-on-the-moon-we-can-put-a-man-on-the-moon dept.

New submitter dmfinn writes "While his union address covered a wide range of topics, President Obama made sure not to skip over the U.S.'s space program. The talking point was nearly identical to the one he gave in 2009, in which he called for space R&D spending to be increased past the levels seen during the the original cold war space race. Now, 4 years after that speech, it appears things have gone the opposite way. Since 2009 NASA has seen some serious cuts. Not only has the space-shuttle program been deactivated, but the agency was forced to endure harsh funding cuts during the presidents latter term. Despite an ominous history, it now seems that Obama is back on the space objective, pushing congress to increase non-defensive R&D spending to 3% of the U.S. GDP. It's important to keep in mind that not all of this money goes directly to space related programs, though under the proposed budget the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories will have their budgets doubled. There will also be an increase in tax credits towards companies and organizations working on these R&D projects. Should the U.S. go back to its 'Let's put a man on the moon' ideology, or is the federal government fighting an uphill battle against newly emerging private space expeditions? Either way, the question remains whether or not Obama will act on any of the propositions."

Social security is not discretionary spending, and it is not part of the federal budget. It is a separate trust fund funded by separate taxes. Even if you got rid of social security completely, unless you raise income tax, the federal budget won't be affected.

There is no reason you have to eliminate social security in order to raise the income tax rate, so the federal budget and social security are orthogonal.

Okay, so pedantically there would be a very small increase from the income tax that you would otherwise have paid on the money you paid in social security taxes, but that's such a small amount of money that it basically qualifies as noise.

That is not true. Getting rid of Social Security obligations would indeed affect the Federal budget because the Social Security Administration holds over $2.5 trillion in government securities. This is because, by law, Social Security is required to buy government securities with surpus funds. The money raised from the securities purchases becomes part of the general fund, where it is immedialy spent by Congress.
So, instead of your surplus payroll tax dollars remaining in the Social Security fund where th

Social security is not discretionary spending, and it is not part of the federal budget. It is a separate trust fund funded by separate taxes.

Umm, no. Social Security taxes are dumped into the General Fund and spent just like any other taxes. Ignore the rhetoric about "Social Security Trust Funds", and read the enabling legislation instead (yes, in spite of everything the government says on the subject, SSA is a pay-as-you-go thing just like every other Federal program).

Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The trust fund is not empty. Unless the federal government declares bankruptcy, that money is owed back to Social Security, period. The government borrowing the money from Social Security is no different than borrowing it from China or from the American people in the form of government bonds.

There is only one kind of US Dollar.... Dollars are fungible... and Social Security is forbidden (by law) from investing in anything other than US debt

What this means:

1. All money collected by tax man is in the same dollars, and it all goes into the same US treasury (the idea that Social Security is something separate is a political and accounting gimmick which even the US supreme court has ruled on: They've already ruled that the fed govt is under no LEGAL obligation to pay anything to the recipients (onl

Wouldn't work. $100,000 is pocket change when you're paying for Medical expenses, Doctors, and food. Understand WHY the spending is so much and fix that.

2012 Military spending was ~1.3 Trillion. Military spending could be brought down to a more manageable 500B if they wanted to, but the contractors and Congress will not allow it. SS could be brought down to 300B if we fixed the price problems with expenses and all the fraud.

Wanna fix things? Get Medical, Food and other prices down and strip the Military dow

100k? you can barely live off that these days. I wouldn't mind having my SS just go into a private brokerage account but I want to to be the one who chooses the investments not some washington picked manager. That of course will never never happen. I think it would be easier to just fix Medicare than SS to be honest, but the hill doesnt even TRY to fix the fraud and problems Medicare has.

Social Security could get to something like actual bank accounts where you save money over your employment lifetime.

The problem with Social Security is that it has been spent as quickly as it came in, and the whole notion of a trust fund is a complete lie. In fact, the trust fund ceased to be an actual reserve when Thomas "Tip" O'Neil was Speaker of the House (during Ronald Reagan's administration) due to some budget changes on how the trust fund was actually administered or misappropriated as it were. Changing it back would expose just how horribly broke the whole system has become.

It should also be pointed out that it was over the past couple of years that more money has been leaving the supposed trust fund than has been collected through payroll taxes. It is already unsustainable and will be more directly impacting the budget in a negative manner soon enough. That is presuming Congress will actually pass a federal budget any time in the next four to sixteen years.

The United States is headed for another trillion dollar deficit [thehill.com]. (Even the rosy CBO numbers project an $800 billion deficit.) And beyond that the debt bomb of unfunded entitlements and pension liabilities only threatens to make things worse.

You think that's bad? Try adjusting those numbers to account for the actual percentage of people who actually pay taxes (and how much). If you make an IT-ish salary, my guess is you owe more like $400k-$600k. Averaging it out equally across every person makes it sound almost downright reasonable.

Also, it's all kind of meaningless. Most of our debt is owed to OURSELVES.

You're confusing mean and median. Look at it compared to GDP. Yeah, we're still broke, but 5% of the population could pay it off easily and leave the rest of us alone. They get most benefit from government anyway.

If you add up the total debt — state, local, the works — every man, woman, and child in this country owes 200 grand (which is rather more than the average Greek does).

This is both false, and, even if you reform it to deal with the outright false part, misleading.
Its false because governments aren't conventional partnerships, so the government debt isn't individual debt of the current residents. Just as you can't add up the liabilities of a corporation and attribute them as personal liabilities of the stockholders, you can't do the same thing if you swap "government" for "corporation" and "resident" for "stockholder".
That aside, measuring per capita external debt is pretty meaningless. Sure, the external debt per capita is higher in the US than in Greece. So is the rate of wealth production available to pay off the debt (e.g., the GDP). Greece's external debt per GDP, the more important measure, is much higher than that in the US.

A governments sole source of revenue isn't its residents either (for most governments, the primary source of revenue is taxpayers, but that's rarely the only source, and the entities that pay tax and the individuals that reside in the country aren't the same sets, though they overlap), but even that's not the point. The point is explicitly stated: a government isn't a pass-through entity whose debts are attributable to any other group (whether "citizens", "residents", "taxpayers", or "revenue contributors", none of which are equivalent groups.) A government's debts are the government's debts, full stop.

The ONLY way the federal government can get money is from its citizens.

They are the ones that will have to pay that debt off, where-as shareholders in a corporation have nothing to do with it's dept or profits.

Well, since they have a legal claim on the assets of the corporation in the event of dissolution, and collectively have the power to force dissolution to collect those assets if they don't like what management is doing and don't feel like replacing the management, they certainly have something to do with its profits (though, in practice, if they don't like what management is doing they'll replace the management.) Since they are generally immune to claims for its debts outside of exceptional circumstances, you are mostly right when it comes to debts.

A corporation can use borrowed money to generate more money.

So can a government.

When the government borrows money, its to cover expenses that they couldn't pay for with tax revenues. There's no way to turn that borrowed money into more money.

Wrong. The government can get money in ways exactly equivalent to some of the ways a corporation can (e.g., by spending money to directly to improve the returns of its own revenue-generating activities, or by purchasing assets and reselling them later for a profit), and in other ways that analogous to ways that a corporation can though strictly different (e.g., any spending that improves the overall economy increases the pool from which the government raises taxes, and can increase revenue in the long-run; this is loosely analogous to corporate ability to invest in various activities that either make it more attractive to consumers or which grow the market for its industry in general, though generally only loosely analogous.)

You really need to differentiate between government spending and government investment. The government should be able to keep investing in areas that will enable the new and continued markets of the future, creating the basis for continued employment. The government needs to provide some level of spending helping people who are stumbling get back on their feet, too, but right now we do way too little of the first compared to the second. The solution isn't to slash the first further.

I'd like to see Moon Base Gingrich as much as the next geek, but it's simply not going to happen with this Congress and this President. The reason is that the Republicans in Congress have decided as pretty much a matter of policy that they will vote against anything the President proposes.

He wasn't trying to spend his way out of debt. He was trying to spend his way out of recession- something that does work if you borrow (or use savings) the money you do it on and the cause of the recession was lack of consumer confidence/demand or lack of capital (which this was in part). The trick is that you have to make up for it in good times by repaying the debt, something we've been bad at. Also, it helps if the extra money being spent is on things with long term results like infrastructure and R&D. Spending it on things like wars will give a short term bump but no long term advantages.

THe fact is right now our debt not only doesn't matter, any business leader in the world would be telling us to take on more of it. We're borrowing at about 1% interest. That means if we have anything to invest in that would pay better than 1% return, we ought to borrow to pay for it. Since the rate of inflation is higher than that, anything with any real long term value is a good buy, as the principal will be less when due than it is now. Debt really isn't a short term problem for us.

That means it isn't a short term problem. It may become one in the future, but for now we're perfectly fine.

It's not that simple......who is buying the bonds? A lot of it is from banks who have borrowed the money from the federal reserve. Inflation is not a big issue for them, since they make profit no matter how much inflation happens. Interestingly China is doing the same thing, borrowing money to buy US treasury bonds.

Because so much of the outstanding debt is in shorter term bonds, if interest rates rise, the debt can become a huge issue very quickly, especially since fed actions mask the true demand.

Actually study that suggestion. He wanted to mint it so we'd technically have 1 trillion in assets and could ignore the debt ceiling. Which is an idiotic law- if you pass laws requiring us to spend the money, then say we can't spend the money legally, it makes no sense. He never suggested using it to fix the economy, but to end run around bad law. Although I do happen to disagree with that approach- it gives too much power to the presidency, I'd rather see a constitutional challenge to the debt ceilin

why does our national debt keep going up? Aren't we paying it down or is the USA just making minimum payments.

We're making interest-only payments on it.

Then borrowing more every year on top of that.

Note that for all that Clinton "balanced the budget", the national debt has not decreased since before I was born. And I was alive for Kennedy's election (too young to care who (or what) the President was, but alive).

That's because the President keeps spending money. You can't spend your way out of debt, it's ludicrous

If it was ludicrous to spend more money in the short term to expand the long-term ability to earn revenue for all purposes, including paying down debt, businesses would never issue bonds (and if they tried to issue them, no one would ever buy them; and even if the businesses issued them and gullible fools bought them, both the issuing businesses and the foolish investors would collapse.)

In the real world, businesses use deficit spending to grow their ability to earn revenue all the time.

In the real world, businesses use deficit spending to grow their ability to earn revenue all the time.

Businesses pay off their bonds from time to time.

The Feds, on the other hand, do deficit spending every year, regular as clockwork, with no intention of ever paying off the debt.

Note that deficit spending to accomplish some specific objective (as opposed to "we want to spend more money than tax revenues allow, so we'll borrow some more") wouldn't bother nearly so many people as you might think.

Some do, some don't. IIRC, plenty of growing businesses have debt that is mostly-increasing (if not quite perfectly monotically increasing) over time, but its constrained because the long-term rate of growth of the business exceeds the long-term rate of growth of the debt.

The Feds, on the other hand, do deficit spending every year, regular as clockwork, with no intention of ever paying off the debt.

The National Debt goes up for two main reasons: Social Security and the Trade Deficit.

The Social Security "trust fund" is a bunch of T-bills, and represents the second largest chunk of the National Debt - $2.72 Trillion. Whenever they take in more social security payroll taxes than they pay out in benefits, they put the surplus into T-bills. Those T-bills are then counted as part of the National Debt.

In other words,

1. We owe this chunk of the National Debt to ourselves - to old people and sick people

2. The Social Security Payroll Tax is not really used for Social Security - it just goes right back into the general fund, and even worse, the general fund has to pay interest to Social Security, which means we're even more screwed than you thought.

The other reason the national debt keeps going up is due to the trade deficit.

We buy Chinese goods in Dollars. We pay them in Dollars. They can't use dollars in their domestic economy for anything - worthless paper to them. They'd have to plow the dollars into American goods to make use of them, but they don't do that. They don't buy enough of our stuff, so instead of stuffing that cash in a vault somewhere, they buy a bunch of T-bills so they can collect interest. That accounts for the largest chunk of the national debt, over 5 Trillion.

Important to note that, no matter what happens with spending, the national debt will continue to grow because of these two things. Blaming the national debt on spending alone is not accurate.

2. The Social Security Payroll Tax is not really used for Social Security - it just goes right back into the general fund, and even worse, the general fund has to pay interest to Social Security

Umm, no.

Those T-Bills we give the SSA are a zero-interest T-Bill (essentially, an IOU).

Oh, and our trade deficit has little, if anything, to do with our national debt. Our national debt goes up because Congress doesn't want to raise taxes enough to cover all the Federal spending we do. Nor does it want to reduc

Yeah, sort of, although you have to remember that the 165 billion number isn't accurate due to the Bush administration keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars off the budget. That doesn't take into account a huge amount of money that we were spending.

Most of that change came about because of the recession and the government response to it: decreased tax revenue (greatly exacerbated by the Bush tax cuts), stimulus spending, the tax cuts since Obama came into office, and increased interest payments on the

Isn't this what every start-up company that accepts venture capital is trying to do?

This article isn't talking about spending on food stamps or fallacious broken windows. It's talking about spending on fundamental research - the kind chase-the-quarter capitalism doesn't do very well - so as to yield a return in new industries to create employment years and decades from now. This isn't that much different than what start-ups are trying to do, except the government can think on a much longer scale - something that I'm glad a government can take time to do.

Isn't this what every start-up company that accepts venture capital is trying to do?

This article isn't talking about spending on food stamps or fallacious broken windows. It's talking about spending on fundamental research - the kind chase-the-quarter capitalism doesn't do very well - so as to yield a return in new industries to create employment years and decades from now. This isn't that much different than what start-ups are trying to do, except the government can think on a much longer scale - something that I'm glad a government can take time to do.

I would have just said spending is the only way out of debt. (Where spending = investment)

That's wrong on a lot of levels:1. The President can't carry out any of the laws of the US without spending money, unless you somehow think that all the civil servants and soldiers and contractors are suddenly going to do things on a volunteer basis. No money for government = no government.

2. The President can't (legally) spend a dime without authorization from Congress. Congress has passed laws either allowing him or demanding him to spend exactly what he's spending.

3. Total federal spending as a percentage of GDP wase the same in 2012 as 1983 under that notorious liberal Ronald Reagan. There was a spike between 2008 and 2009 because the country's economy crashed, but it's gone down ever since.

4. Federal tax receipts are the lowest since 1945. It's not a stretch to suggest that this might have some sort of effect on budget deficits.

5. The Republicans in the House have opposed proposals by the president that involve combinations of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. That means they're making decisions based on principles that have nothing to do with the deficit.

6. To get a balanced budget, you have to cut approximately 1/3 of the federal budget, immediately. Some math: If we completely eliminated the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, Labor, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and stopped paying anyone who works at the White House, we'd still not have a balanced budget. So what would you suggest that Obama stop spending money on?

It's hard to say if, under the previous administration, we would still be in Iraq, since that was never a possible outcome. However, compared to the alternative (McCain's "100 more years!" explanation, Obama getting our troops out in his first term earns him a solid B+ from me on that promise.

It's hard to say if, under the previous administration, we would still be in Iraq, since that was never a possible outcome. However, compared to the alternative (McCain's "100 more years!" explanation, Obama getting our troops out in his first term earns him a solid B+ from me on that promise.

Since Obama pulled out of Iraq on Bush's timetable (the one we negotiated with the Iraqi government), it's probably fairly safe to say we'd be out of Iraq, with or without Obama.

I am hella certain this will actually change something and is not just something he said so he could keep being "the cool president." He most def won't take actions in the future that are directly counter to this goal. Also, we should have cold fusion in about a month.

If I recall correctly, he promised to pull troops out... I don't think he promised to evacuate completely. As for lowering gas prices, well... I don't think that those are actually subject to presidential decision, and it was foolish of him to have ever stated that he could.

The only sensible way to approach this, other than decrying obscene levels of politicial incompetence, is to imagine that obaminator wants to invest in space R&D to re-prime the science and consumer tech boom windfalls of the previous space race, that gave rise to the information era.

However, those windfalls were the result of brand new technologies, and old technologies being miniaturized to fit in the limited space and energy budgets of spacecraft. Those problems have now been satisfactorily solved, a

Austerity is working great for Europe. They are growing at a slower rate than the US which used a half-assed attempt to spur growth, but don't worry, those austerity plans will pay off any day now.

You do government austerity when the economy is good not when it's bad. Keynes was right. The problem is, we don't actually follow Keynes. We spend in bad and spend in good when he said we should spend in bad and save in good. You want us to cut in bad times which would surely help demand! If no one has money they

Do you think Obama makes people and business want to spend and invest their money? Are you kidding? Do you not understand that there is a very large contingent of people out there who feel attacked by Obama and his policies? He is direct and unashamed about his redistributionist plans.

To many, he is the most anti-business president this country has seen in a long time. Note I said "anti". Not pro, not neutral but outright hostile.
Don't take my word for it, go ask the business owners (ie: your "

Infrastructure spending, creating the demand for STEM careers and so on - that's investing in the future. If there isn't money for it, raise it through taxes on fraud artists like Wall Street, close loopholes so corporations actually pax taxes or can't outsource their incomes overseas for low rates, etc.

I believe you will find, should you care to look, that now president obama voted YES to all three of those issues you have addressed, while he was still a congressman.

Last I checked, the president still cannot declare a war without congressional approval. You cannot handwave away bad fiscal and foriegn policy decisions as being the sole responsibility of a single politician. Our system does not work that way (yet).

You can possibly redeem yourself if you can explain your grounds for such a statement. I at least attempted to qualify the position I had taken. Your rebuttle does nothing of the sort. It is essentially the highbrow version of "Nu uh!"

Please, shower us with your profound insights as to how the position I have taken is "not even wrong." Until you do so, you have contributed nothing to this discussion.

It's not a royally stupid idea. It's literally the only thing that matters, in the medium-to-long term.

There will be an extinction level event. The only way for our species to survive it is to live on places other than Earth. If you don't think that humanity ought to preserve itself, well, I don't know how to explain that to you.

So, Obama wants to get NASA's budget higher than it was at the height of the space race? Presuming we're talking in inflation-adjusted dollars here (and not percentage of federal budget, because that would be nuts), that's an increase to about 2.1x the current budget.

It seems to me that doubling NASA's budget is not terribly likely. America's chances of comprehensive space travel seem like they have little chance except through the dramatically lower cost of commercial spaceflight.

Should the U.S. go back to its 'Let's put a man on the moon' ideology?

No they shouldn't. People seem to easily forget that the Apollo missions, at least up until Apollo 11, were exactly that - ideology. The ideology that the American way was better than the Soviet way, replete with the American Hero striding out where no man has gone before - albeit that last part was probably largely accidental, as the idea of sending a black man, or (God forbid) a woman probably never occurred to anyone and the caree

If/when it happens, we congratulate them. It will be another accomplishment not only for the Chinese people, but the humanity as a whole. After all, we've already done it, and revered the same way all around the world.

Not everything needs to be a race or competition. The cold war is over a couple of decades ago.

When the Chinese land on the moon, they're not going to be leaving. Expect them to plant a flag, pull down the other flags, and start mining. Not to worry, you will be allowed to buy the resulting products.

after reviewing report after report of the BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition purchased in the last year (more than the entire amount of ammunition spent in 6yrs of conflict in Iraq) for agencies like the NOAA and Social Security Administration, I would not be in the least surprised to hear that this proposed spending increase was yet another way to buy and arm more federal branches of the government while doing nothing to the status quot of the functionality of the departments themselves. Increasing spendin

become the enforcer of Obamacare. In just 12 months, all Americans will be required to buy health insurance that meets Obama's specs. The IRS estimates that these policies will cost $20,000.00 per year per Adult (and $10,000.00 per year per child). If you do not buy this insurance for yourself, your spouse and your kids, you will be penalized by the IRS.... unless you are an illegal alien (they are specifically exempt from the penalty (it's right in the plain text of the law)). Oh, they do get the same care

As for the many millions (billions now? could be I suppose) of rounds Obama has been having all the non-military agencies buy... I have heard no explanation.

If you're requiring all your Federal Agents to carry firearms (don't know if they are or not), then they're all required to qualify on their weapons. Which currently requires shooting anywhere from hundreds to thousands of rounds per year per agent.

Don't know if this is the explanation, but it's not an unreasonable explanation, especially if rules ha

How about we stop the stupid war in the middle east, spend that money on some good old space programs? How about we stop bullying other nations and instead work with them with a common goal, like space travel/colonies?

I personally want more research and development specially in the area of space research!
But how to pay for it? we are already borrowing as much as taxes bring in to the Federal Government. That unsustainable.

I've been saying this for a while. The last space race we had allowed 440,000 engineers to make advances in almost every sector of industry. From materials that could withstand the cold of space and the heat of re-entry to the computer and hardware that controlled the spacecraft, that decade was one of the most productive periods of technical advancement in human history. And we don't stand a chance of doing it again, not because there's a shortage of big technological problems, but because of the fact that there is a large segment of the population that believes that the government should not be involved in such technological advancements - the private sector should do it alone. And here we stand, at the sunset of the American empire, and many Americans are too ideological to see the value in having the government work in cooperation with the private sector to make another technological push that will propel us further out into the lead. We've already reduced government's role in technology quite a bit and yet we seem to be losing ground to the Chinese who are using a combination of the public and private sector to push forward. I know many people are rightly concerned about our national debt, but you have to spend money to make money. We just have to be a LOT better at taking the money we make and actually paying off our debt for once.

I think this "ideology" has something to do with the very realistic observation that the government isn't trustworthy, that they think the historical position of "we should not be murdering babies in the name of 'fulfilling one's potential'" is perhaps a rational one while those now in power are mandating even to those who are lawful and backed by the law and history on this position to pool resources into the hands of people who facilitate and pay for such child-murder (and bioethicists at major academic a

Obama was the one who created the "sequestration" plan (Liberal-favorite and Watergate hero journalists Bob Woodward reported this) and Obama signed it into law. Now he is demanding the GOP violate their principles as the price for avoiding sequestration... so the only way Obama will NOT chop NASA's funds is if the GOP caves-in on their principles and this might not happen; too many house Republicans have already outraged their base supporters by raising the limits on Obama's credit card over and over again (allowing him to drive-up nearly $7,000,000,000.000.00 in new debts). Obama is also the guy who tried to kill NASA's manned spaceflight capabilities; first he killed the bi-partisan Constellation program, then he shut-down shuttle operations (and ripped-up the infrastructure and tore the guts out of the orbiters (they all now have fake engines, gutted OMS pods and gutted FRCS modules) so they could never fly again). Sure, he has funded commercial cargo to ISS (this is the Bush "COTS" program, not an Obama program). Sure, he claims to be pushing "commercial" manned spaceflight (by tossing a little cash at 3 different companies), but [a] none of these companies has any firm commitment from the government (possibly why none has firm scheduled for manned flights) [b] they're not being given enough for a real program and [c] These programs are being run so slowly that none will carry anybody into orbit while Obama is in office. Congress (bi-partisan effort) forced Obama to plan to build the new SLS rocket and to keep working on the Orion capsule, but he has had his people slow-walk these programs in the apparent hope that dragging them out will frustrate congress and cause congress to cancel them (to such an extreme that the senate had to threaten legal action to get him to stop foot-dragging); there are no planned manned American space flights currently in any official NASA plan other than 1 possible flight around the moon (no landing) many yeas from now, possibly. maybe.

"Obama... shut-down shuttle operations" -- that's a lie or damn near to it. Obama allowed shuttle operations to be shut down as per the plan for that established by the Bush administration in 2004. By the time Obama took office the shuttle program was winding down. Obama did cancel most of the bloated, overpriced and under funded Constellation program but that was because it was obvious that Constellation wasn't doing anything besides funnelling $$ billions to Morton-Thiokal, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin

Let's close some corporate tax loopholes, pull out of our foreign wars, stop giving tax credits to companies that outsource, make some common sense spending cuts, tax capital gains as income, and raise taxes on the wealthy by 5 to 10 percent!

That sounded suspect, so I thought I'd take a quick look at some real numbers, which probably aren't of interest to you, but should be seen by other people so they don't take your statement at face value.

The combined income of everyone in America is roughly 13 trillion dollars (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm)

This year's projected deficit is about $850 billion (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/12/3230392/growth-in-us-budget-deficit-slows.html)

The top 10% of earners account for about 22% of the total income (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html), or just under 3 trillion dollars per year.

A 100% tax on their income would close the deficit twice over, even if no spending cuts were made, and that's assuming that they're already paying the maximum marginal tax rate of 39 percent (hint: many extremely wealthy people are making money from capital gains, and are taxed at 15% on that income).

It's worth noting that this is a projection early in the fiscal year. If they're still projecting that in May or June after about half a year of activity and most tax collection has occurred, then I'd take it more seriously. Past projections have undershot by a bit.

what you ignore is that if you take all their money, they no longer can run their companies or hire their maids or buy their food. All the while the government will not cut spending because they never do. This would have a catastrophic affect on the american and world economy.

What you ignore is the basic math involved here:

A 100% tax on their income would close the deficit twice over

Therefore, a 50% tax would take care of the problem in 12 months, and let them stay far more wealthy than the rest of us. Win-win.

For the record, nowhere in my comment did I advocate taxing the wealthy at 100% of their income. That would be incredibly stupid, for exactly the reasons you stated. No one in their right mind would advocate a 100% income tax -- it's just that people tend to oversimplify their reasoning, like this:

"A 100% income tax is clearly worse than a 0% income tax, therefore a 0% income tax is optimal in all cases."

Just because no tax may be better than a 100% tax, it doesn't follow that the benefit of income tax decreases linearly as the income tax goes from 0 to 100 percent. There's a point somewhere between 0 and 100 percent that's optimal for the economy, and economic performance data over the last half century or so would seem to indicate that we're below that point at the moment.

The article claims that there's absolutely no connection between a higher marginal tax rate and GDP growth. A closer look at that graph reveals that the article in question doesn't even go far enough -- If you draw a regression line in the GDP growth data (so as to smooth out the bumps of a typical economic cycle) you'll notice that overall GDP growth has actually *decreased* slightly as marginal tax rates have decreased.

If the data is any indication (and it probably is), raising taxes on the wealthy would have little or no effect on our economic growth, *and* it would be a big step toward eliminating the deficit.

With North Korea in space and soon to have the capability to send nukes over to the US, followed by Iran, and with China putting up a space station and heading to the moon, you can be sure that the money will be found from somewhere.

We spend more money on the military than every other country on earth combined. This with an existing nuclear arsenal that could destroy any country 10 times over. We should be slashing military spending to the bone- its just not needed. How about reducing military spending to even just say triple what China (the number 2 country) spends? We're fucking ridiculous.

Since China's military industries are all state-owned, we could never have feature or progress parity with them even at 5x their budget. The state-owned model is simply much more efficient than the for-profit contractor model, dollar for dollar.

When you couple this with the fact that the defense lobby is insanely powerful, and that they are more profitable than ever, it's pretty easy to see that China can win the arms race without attempting measure their progress in money spent, unlike us. Hell, professi

Collect appropriate taxes on people like Mitt Romney, who paid a 14.1% tax rate on income of $13 million.

Collect appropriate taxes on corporations like Apple, which paid well less then 10% taxes on it's overseas profits, and now has $120+ billion in cash.

End special tax breaks for oil companies. It's so complicated that you can't even get a vague figure on how much they do or don't pay. Some of their big breaks go back to 1915 and 1926. These are some of the most profitable companies in the world. Why do

Could you "where's the money" people please, please, please stop? If you actually care about the budget that much, you should already be aware that the amount needed for a good space program is minuscule compaed to the problem you're trying to fix by not spending it. You should also be aware that no matter what we use all the fake money for, our government is hell-bent on "solving" that problem by kicking it down the road until it becomes a hyperinflation spiral in about 2030, and they decided they were go